Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

I don't believe court systems absolutely prove things, they just come to the best conclusion they can based on the information they have. Worldviews aren't involved to the same extent.

Specific events in the past can usually be examined using a variety of techniques. In the example I gave we can date many pieces of shell and establish the age of a particular site. If somebody disagrees they can date more shells or other materials and see if they get different results.And please stop using "proof" and "prove." As I posted before, those are not the criteria of science. Your use of those terms exposes you as a creationist and shows your lack of knowledge of the scientific method.

Does DuPont use the scientific method? Does DuPont prove things? Was your statement wrong?Do you think I can show you scientific things that DuPont proves? Edited by marc9000, : Took out trollish sentence. Edited by marc9000, : Added one more question

Don't be a troll, its very unbecoming.

Yes DuPont uses the scientific method often but does not use the scientific method to prove things.

Nobody absolutely proves things. You mean like science? What does worldviews have to do with it?

Exactly. Dupont is not in the business to 'do science'.At some point, it becomes engineering. In this case, chemical engineering.

The irony ... it burns ... You just described science ... it doesn't "absolutely prove things," it just comes to the best conclusion it can based on the information it has.And it does reach conclusions that are demonstrably valid beyond reasonable doubt, such as that the earth is very, very, very old, based on even more evidence than is posted in this thread. Conclusions we can have high confidence in being valid because of the preponderance of evidence.Especially when those conclusions are backed up by several different systems of investigation, using different methodologies, but reaching the same conclusions.Tree rings and lake and marine varves agreeing to remarkable degree of precision and accuracy not just on age but on 14C content and then agreeing with ice cores not just on volcanic events but on climate variations.Explaining results as errors in one system with some made up cockamamie creationist conception does not explain the consilience with the same results from other systems, and explaining results as errors in another system with some other made up cockamamie creationist conception does not explain the consilience with the same results from other systems, and this inability to explain the congruence and consilience in results is why cockamamie creationist conceptions have failed to explain reality in a way that incorporates ALL the objective empirical facts/evidence. ...... while science consistently shows an old age for the earth that is beyond reasonable doubt.Why does the wiggle pattern of variation of ¹⁴C with age match the wiggle pattern of variation of ¹⁰Be in ice layers for the same ages if they are not both accurate and precise records of the cosmogenic climate that creates both 14C and 10Be in the atmosphere at different ages?Why does the pattern of variation of δ¹⁸O and δ¹³C in ice layers match the pattern of variation of δ¹⁸O and δ¹³C in a calcite flow in a cavern in Nevada for the same age, when one is measured by ice layers and the other is measured by two independent radiometric methods ("Thorium-230 dates were independently confirmed by non-USGS investigators using Protactinium-231.") ... if they are not due to the same actual age of the earth?

quote:

---

Using the half-lives of thorium-230 (75,380 years) and protactinium-231 (32,760 years), we can now draw the exponential curves for these isotopes (with % on the y-axis and time in k-yrs on the x axis, thorium in blue and protactinium in red):

​

​

This means we have a series of data with three different pieces of information: calcite layer age, Thorium-230 content and Protactinium-231 content. We also note that Thorium-230 has a half-life of 75,380 years, while Protactinium-231 has a half-life of 32,760 years - less than half the half-life of Thorium-230. This means that layer by layer the ratio of Thorium-230 to Protactinium-231 is different:

​

   Age   THr=THf/THo PAr=PAf/PAo  THr/PAr
------------------------------------------
75,380     0.5000     0.2029        2.46
150,760     0.2500     0.0412        6.07
226,140     0.1250     0.0084       14.96
301,520     0.0625     0.0017       36.86
376,900     0.0313     0.0003       90.82
452,280     0.0156     0.0001      223.77
527,660     0.0078     0.00001     551.35

​

So for these dates to be invalid there would have to be a mechanism that can layer by layer preferentially change the ratio of these two {elements\isotopes} within the solid calcite vein.

​

Based on the ages determined from the radioactive decay of thorium and protactinium the values for δ¹⁸O and δ¹³C values were tabulated and these climate patterns were compared to those of the ice cores. The result was that they were "highly correlated" with climatological data from the Vostok ice core data, which "matches almost perfectly" the climatological data from the Greenland ice core data. Thus the climate correlation shows that the ages determined by the radioactive decay match the ages determined from counting the layers of ice in these cores - highly correlated between two climate measures, two radioactive age measures, two ice cores.

---

(From Message 9 in this thread).The simplest explanation is that these congruent, correlating consiliences are due to actual age measurements, made by hard working scientists using a variety of methods that have each and all been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be accurate and precise.The other simple explanation is that it was all created as a joke to delude people and with the intent to lead them astray. Loki comes to mind ...The earth is really old. Get used to it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

No.They can be, and are, established as true far beyond reasonable doubt. But the possibility of other explanations exists. E.g. the entire Universe could have been created last Thursday with a full complement of fake history and memories and whatever is required to make that creation undetectable. Or invisible magic space walruses could be affecting the results for their amusement. Go ahed, prove those impossible.There's an infinite number of other possibilities, none of which are worth serious consideration. But the existence of those possibilities requires that logically we cannot claim absolute proof such as we have in mathematics.

Before you try to criticize science, you should learn what some of the terminology means.

You scored an own goal. Events of the past don’t have to be repeated to be scientific. In science the evidence provided must be observable and the experiments to confirm or deny hypotheses must be repeatable.It would help you if you knew the basics about basic science before trying to "prove" that science is wrong...

Is that disagreement based on science or fantasy? Are you going to reply to Message 548 which shows that the earth is older than fantasy YECie belief/opinion/delusion ... Or do you go with the alternative?

quote:

---

Message 548: The simplest explanation is that these congruent, correlating consiliences are due to actual age measurements, made by hard working scientists using a variety of methods that have each and all been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be accurate and precise.

​

The other simple explanation is that it was all created as a joke to delude people and with the intent to lead them astray. Loki comes to mind ...

​

The earth is really old. Get used to it.

---

Enjoy

In 'pure science', things are proved. If DuPont uses pure science to determine to try a new chemical formula in one of its paint products to improve its performance, and it's performance is observed to be improved, then that scientific experiment was proven. Not pure science. Just theoretical science, often atheistic science. EVERYTHING. What to study, how thorough to study it, what desired conclusions have already been reached, etc.

It's not? With the slogan of "The Miracles of Science"? "At some point", within DuPont's many methods, including science. (pure science) Not the atheist-promoting kind.

quote:

---

DuPont’s vision has always been to apply world-class science to enable a better, safer, and healthier life for people everywhere. Today, we are helping our customers find solutions to some of the world’s most pressing needs, by enabling safer, more nutritious food; creating high-performance, cost effective and energy efficient materials; and increasingly delivering renewably sourced bio-based materials and fuels. All of our business call upon our world-class science and technology, a deep understanding of commercial value chains and market knowledge to deliver value-added solutions. This total system of innovation continually renews our portfolio, creates new product lines, and transforms markets to deliver results for our customers, employees and shareholders.

---

Science and Innovation | DuPontYou'll notice there was nothing there about wasting a lot of time and effort in agonizing over the age of the earth.Some more from that link;

quote:

---

Our world class science draws on a rich mix of deep scientific disciplines to address significant market opportunities both within and across our businesses. Broadly speaking, these disciplines fall under chemistry, materials science, biology, and engineering. DuPont science includes deep, world-class capabilities and sub-disciplines such as organic chemistry, polymer chemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, and process engineering that are frequently brought together within and across businesses to advance new technologies and create valuable new outcomes for our customers.

---

(bolded mine) If you and others here don't think DuPont is in the business to do science, shouldn't the scientific community sue them for claiming they do?

Often after starting with a pre-determined conclusion, heavily influenced by a worldview. Except when the creationist conception considers the possibility of another time dimension. Something the human mind can't comprehend. And as I alluded to earlier, if we try to mistakenly jam-pack all of reality into ONLY what we can understand, the possibilities of going off on a wrong tangent and having it quickly snowball into a whole lot of wrongs is understood by those who don't think humans are perfect, who don't think humans are gods. I don't need to get used to it, I live in the present. The only reason you would suggest that I get used to it is to make it easier for me to accept future liberal political commands that are associated with its "knowledge". That's what the scientific community's brand of science is all about, isn't it?